Ready to die--freed on a technicality

Abdul is free--for now. But for how long? And will his fellow countrymen kill him for leaving Islam?

From the latest news on Abdul Rahman:

In an interview published Sunday by an Italian newspaper, Rahman said his family, including his former wife and two teenage daughters, reported him to authorities.

He stressed that he was fully aware of his choice to convert.

"If I must die, I will die," Rahman told the Rome daily La Repubblica, which did not interview him directly but channeled questions through a human rights worker who visited him in prison.

Rahman said he chose to become a Christian "in small steps" after leaving Afghanistan around 1990. He moved to Peshawar, Pakistan, then Germany and tried to get a visa in Belgium.

"In Peshawar, I worked for a humanitarian organization. They were Catholics," Rahman said. "I started talking to them about religion, I read the Bible, it opened my heart and my mind."

After saying he was ready to die, he told La Repubblica: "Somebody, a long time ago, did it for all of us," in a clear reference to Jesus Christ.

___

Associated Press correspondent Rahim Faiez in Kabul contributed to this report.

How many Americans Christians would be strong enough to say the same thing? God bless and keep Abdul safe. His battle to believe as his conscience tells him is far from over.

Facing the Lions in Afghanistan...

From WorldNetDaily.com
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49345

Man faces death penalty for becoming Christian
Despite ouster of Taliban by U.S., court still prosecutes ex-Muslim

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


Despite the fact the hardline Taliban regime is no longer in power, an Afghan man faces possible execution for allegedly abandoning his Islamic roots and becoming a Christian.

"Yes that's true, a man has converted to Christianity. He's being tried in one of our courts," Supreme Court judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada told the Middle East Times.


The case centers on Abdul Rahman, believed to be 41, who converted from Islam to Christianity some 16 years ago. His relatives reportedly notified authorities about the conversion.

The constitution in Afghanistan is based on Shariah law, which states any Muslim who rejects his or her religion should be sentenced to death.

"We are not against any particular religion in the world. But in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is against the law," the judge told the Associated Press. "It is an attack on Islam. ... The prosecutor is asking for the death penalty."

If he indeed is sentenced, Rahman would be the first person punished for leaving Islam since the Taliban was ousted by American-led forces in late 2001, in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Prosecutor Abdul Wasi says he offered to drop the charges if Rahman made the switch back to Islam, but the defendant is maintaining his Christian beliefs. The judge is expected to rule within two months.

You hate to admit it but the death penalty is one very effective means of preventing your population from switching religions.

This story is yet another illustration how "Allah" is not the God of the Bible, no matter what the universalists believe. The apostle John tells us "God is love," and "We love because God first loved us." How can Allah be God if he decrees death sentences on those who refuse to worship him?

But isn't it awe-inspiring to know that Abdul Rahman is willing to die for his belief in Christ as the Son of the one and only true living God? Pray that Abdul will receive justice and be set free. Pray for our brothers and sisters in Christ who face death and other punishments for their belief. Pray that they will remain firm in their faith in a loving God who cares enough about sinful mankind that he sent his son Jesus into the world for the forgiveness of our sins.

Pray that more people's eyes will be opened to the true horrors that non-belief in Christ wreaks upon the world...

The Guilt of the Already Born?

Anne Lamott, essayist and novelist, speaks out on the LA Times opinion page in a piece called “The Rights of the Born”. Read her thoughts here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-lamott10feb10,0,6836804.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

To quote Ms. Lamott:

"Most women like me would much rather use our time and energy fighting to make the world safe and just and fair for the children we do have, and do love — and for the children of New Orleans and the children of Darfur. I am old and tired and menopausal and would mostly like to be left alone: I have had my abortions, and I have had a child.

"But as a Christian and a feminist, the most important message I can carry and fight for is the sacredness of each human life, and reproductive rights for all women is a crucial part of that: It is a moral necessity that we not be forced to bring children into the world for whom we cannot be responsible and adoring and present. We must not inflict life on children who will be resented; we must not inflict unwanted children on society."

I can see now why Anne Lamott felt like she gave a “spewy” emotional answer to the panel question of how a caring society can allow so many abortions to occur each and every day… Her own words convict her:

“We must not inflict life on children who will be resented; we must not inflict unwanted children on society.”

Anne—are you saying you resent your own mother bringing you into the world? Was society “inflicted” with you? (Did not want you?) Or are you saying that your life possesses more "sacredness" than other human beings' lives because your tiny body didn’t wind up in a waste can?

So, what I really want to know is who makes the judgment that one child is “inflicted” and another child isn’t "inflicted on society"? The pregnant woman? The child's father? A politician in Washington?

Do any of these individuals really understand what it means to be inflicted on society? Who has the wisdom to determine a child's "wantedness"?

What does a woman who has experienced several abortions tell her living child each and every night at bedtime? Does she tell her living child that she did not “adore” his/her siblings enough so they had to be aborted instead of carried to term and given to adoptive parents who could "adore" and care for them instead?

And what does a child--when he/she comes to realize that by sheer happenstance he/she is still breathing--really believe about a mother who callously ends her other children’s existence? Will this child grow up fearful, concerned that if he/she does something bad Mommy will terminate him/her just as easily?

Who says one day we can’t legalize abortions up to the 200 months after conception? Let's get rid of all those whiny pre-teens and teenagers who “inflict” themselves upon our society. I resent their awful loud music and their tacky dyed hair and tatoos. I don't see why we couldn't abort "unwanted" teens.

Have I lost my mind completely? I'm saying I want to kill teenagers... Hey, if their little bodies once resided inside of mine they belong to me. It's for me to decide their "wantedness", right?

I understand now why so many people are fleeing from liberal political parties and organizations. They say they are fighting for world peace and the end of the death penalty around the world—good. But at the same time, these groups don’t grasp that cutting a defenseless baby out of a mother’s womb is also an act of killing.

Let's skip the euphemisms here and call abortion what it is: The death penalty for the unwanted--without benefit of a trial.

An individual kills dozens of innocent bystanders in a terrorist bombing—that person shouldn’t receive the death penalty for his crimes you say. Fine. A woman routinely ends the lives of fetuses she didn’t plan for in the first place—that woman shouldn’t get the death penalty, either. Okay, I see your logic. But, still, in both cases unique human beings our Creator deemed fit to bring into this realm of existence have died at the hands of others.

I remember reading something against taking such actions in the Bible somewhere… Oh yeah. “Thou shalt not kill,” and "Thou shalt not bear false witness." (Hey, a fetus is innocent until proven guilty of being an unwanted, infliction upon society, right?)

A moral, caring individual should feel remorse over sanctioning millions upon millions of abortions. She should give a “spewy” emotional answer to a hot question on a liberal panel. Anne, let me spell it out to you in easy to understand terms that even a novelist can comprehend: What you’re feeling is called “guilt”.

Thank God Almighty that He sent our Savior Jesus into the world. Jesus came to grant forgiveness of even our most deepest and darkest guilty feelings. We can cut the “spewy” answers and confess our grief and guilt to him and receive forgiveness.

And then we can share the Good News with others that God never “inflicts” human beings upon society. God has a special purpose for each and everyone of us. And it doesn’t go against any political agenda to want to support the rights of precious, unborn human beings.